News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


TEPaul

Re:Rubenstein: Pros must put a new spin on their game
« Reply #25 on: June 29, 2007, 08:47:40 AM »
To really understand what's going on today with ball performance on the part of Tour players and others with really high swing speeds, I think one does need to be familiar with a few things from the past.

Perhaps the most important factor from the past is not more curve on the ball but the old trajectory off the driver that the really high swing speed players of the past used to have---eg the best examples are players like Nicklaus or even Davis Love in the beginning of his career (the ones who it it farthest in their eras).

Golfers today who are under 30 years old probably never saw that old trajectory off drivers of the highest swing speed players using high spin rate balls.

Put it this way (excepting a few variables) if a Davis Love used everything he uses today and he hit the ball he uses today and then another ball that has the high spin rate off his driver he used 15-20 years ago AT THE EXACT SAME SWING SPEED (probably around 120mph) that lower spin rate ball (today's ball) would CARRY up to 30 yards farther than the ball he used back then.

And why would that be?

Trajectory!!

In a general sense it seems like the USGA Tech Center confirms this.


TEPaul

Re:Rubenstein: Pros must put a new spin on their game
« Reply #26 on: June 29, 2007, 08:50:41 AM »
The other fallacy of Rubenstein's article is if Open competitors hit a really high spin rate ball like the old balatas into greens that were as firm as Oakmont's it would help some in checking the ball compared to today's ball but nowhere near as much as Rubenstein (and perhaps some others on here) think----eg particularly example shots like Wood's driver into #2 or even Tom's 4 iron into #16.

David_Tepper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Rubenstein: Pros must put a new spin on their game
« Reply #27 on: June 29, 2007, 09:11:45 AM »
Jack Nicklaus, as quoted in the 6/15/07 issue of GolfWorld:

"Jack Grout, my teacher, always told me there were no bad bounces in the air, so I learned to play with trajectory, NOT SPIN. I didn't need spin to get the ball airborne. If I didn't spin it, IT WOULD CURVE LESS and would come down softer. You know, you're allowed 25,000ths of an inch in the width of the groove and I always reduced mine to about 15,000ths. THAT REDUCED THE SPIN EVEN MORE."  

Nicklaus (the original "smash & gouger") pretty much dismisses the concepts of both "working the ball" and "the ground game" in one paragraph! ;)

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Rubenstein: Pros must put a new spin on their game
« Reply #28 on: June 29, 2007, 09:36:48 AM »
David,

Since the grooves are not used to work the ball, how did Jack dismiss it?
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

David_Tepper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Rubenstein: Pros must put a new spin on their game
« Reply #29 on: June 29, 2007, 09:52:54 AM »
Garland -

Do you seriously believe that grooves on an iron club face do not help impart both backspin AND sidespin? Have you ever attempted to "work the ball" with an iron club face that has no grooves? How did that go?

Based on his comments, Nicklaus sure seems to think that grooves  help create the spin needed to work (curve) the ball. I think I will take his word on the subject! ;)

DT


Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Rubenstein: Pros must put a new spin on their game
« Reply #30 on: June 29, 2007, 10:20:09 AM »
David,

I think you are trying to read things into what Jack said that aren't there.

For example, how can you explain him saying the ball would come down softer? Everyone knows that back spin makes a ball come down at a steeper angle, which is what most people would characterize as softer. How could Jack be right, if he is that wrong on just that one piece of what he said? Perhaps if you asked him, he would say by softer he meant with less backspin, but that is not the usual meaning of the words he used.

As my words have indicated, I allow for the possibility of grooves adding a small dimension to sidespin and working the ball.

I think you have to be careful to assign a large significance to words in an interview. The speaker has no chance to mull over and edit his words.

"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Brent Hutto

Re:Rubenstein: Pros must put a new spin on their game
« Reply #31 on: June 29, 2007, 10:21:30 AM »
David,

I'm with Garland on this one. With clean, dry contact between the ball and clubface the presence or absence of grooves has a negligable influence on either backspin or sidespin. And by "negligable" I mean too small to be reliably measured.

That said, if Jack Nicklaus 20 years ago believed that the size and spacing of grooves impart spin he wouldn't be the only person with that belief. It's one of those things that everybody "knows" to be true except for the people who have actually hit balls with and without grooves and measured the spin.

Now out the rough it's a whole different thing. More grooves, more tightly spaced grooves, wider and/or deeper grooves will all produce more spin if there's water or grass between the ball and the clubface. There are many good players who like smaller-than-allowed grooves on their middle and long irons because they know how to play for the flyers out of short rough. Modern large grooves can usually but not always eliminate flyers and the players who know how to account for the flyer will sometimes prefer not to have them (sometimes) reduced.

The research showing that grooves do not add spin in clean contact dates back to the 60's and 70's. With modern balls, clubs and most importantly more sensitive modern measuring instruments some people have been able to quantify a small but measurable difference in spin between grooved and grooveless wedges (but not to my knowledge mid-irons). But we're talking a few percent and only on the highest lofted clubs where the dynamics of impact are somewhat different than on the flatter-faced longer clubs.

TEPaul

Re:Rubenstein: Pros must put a new spin on their game
« Reply #32 on: June 29, 2007, 10:41:38 AM »
Brent:

I agree with you about grooves directly putting spin on a ball.

Grooves simply displace "junk" off the face of a club thereby allowing a cleaner face to put more spin on a ball.

That's precisely why Barney Adams calls grooves nothing much more than "garbage cans". ;)

His point about bigger grooves (U grooves vs V grooves) is that they enable more "junk" to get displaced off the face of a club.

Some people seem to be under the impression that the sharper the edges are on grooves the more spin imparted to the ball.

Barney said sharp edges do nothing of the kind. All sharp edges do is strip paint on the ball's cover.

In that particularly problem was actually most of how the entire PING groove lawsuit began.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Rubenstein: Pros must put a new spin on their game
« Reply #33 on: June 29, 2007, 10:56:37 AM »
David,

I pulled out Golf My Way by Nicklaus with Bowden. You premise about Jack's thoughts on working the ball is pure BS.
Give it up man!
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

David_Tepper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Rubenstein: Pros must put a new spin on their game
« Reply #34 on: June 29, 2007, 11:51:13 AM »
Garland -

Your arguement is with Jack Nicklaus, not with me! ;)

In his comments I have posted above, he explicity states he wanted his shots to spin and curve LESS and altered his irons for that purpose. I don't know how he can state his approach to playing golf any more clearly.

If he presents another opinion/approach to playing golf elsewhere, he may very well have changed his approach to playing golf. He would certainly not be the first golfer to have done so. After all, Ben Hogan started out drawing the ball and switched to hitting a fade later in his career. Compare what Hogan writes in "Power Golf" to what he later wrote in "5 Lessons."

DT
« Last Edit: June 29, 2007, 11:51:59 AM by David_Tepper »

Jim Nugent

Re:Rubenstein: Pros must put a new spin on their game
« Reply #35 on: June 29, 2007, 04:22:57 PM »
Did Jack hit the ball high when he played the British Open?  Wouldn't seem to lend itself to windy links style courses, would it?

Could be one reason he "only" won that event three times, while coming in 2nd another 7 times, and in the top ten a total of 15 (besides his wins).    

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Rubenstein: Pros must put a new spin on their game
« Reply #36 on: June 29, 2007, 04:27:26 PM »
Did Jack hit the ball high when he played the British Open?  Wouldn't seem to lend itself to windy links style courses, would it?

Could be one reason he "only" won that event three times, while coming in 2nd another 7 times, and in the top ten a total of 15 (besides his wins).    

One of the reasons he said he knew he needed the draw in his bag of shots.

Interestingly he learned to win with a draw by hitting one to protect a flare up of bursitis in his hip when he was a young man. Once he won with it, he knew he had to keep it in his bag of shots.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Rubenstein: Pros must put a new spin on their game
« Reply #37 on: June 29, 2007, 05:39:00 PM »
The other fallacy of Rubenstein's article is if Open competitors hit a really high spin rate ball like the old balatas into greens that were as firm as Oakmont's it would help some in checking the ball compared to today's ball but nowhere near as much as Rubenstein (and perhaps some others on here) think----eg particularly example shots like Wood's driver into #2 or even Tom's 4 iron into #16.


Why is that Tom?

Doug Siebert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Rubenstein: Pros must put a new spin on their game
« Reply #38 on: July 01, 2007, 12:09:50 AM »
Garland -

Do you seriously believe that grooves on an iron club face do not help impart both backspin AND sidespin? Have you ever attempted to "work the ball" with an iron club face that has no grooves? How did that go?

Based on his comments, Nicklaus sure seems to think that grooves  help create the spin needed to work (curve) the ball. I think I will take his word on the subject! ;)

DT




Ever used a beat up old wedge with severely worn grooves?  Works great so long as you hit the ball first and don't get any grass in the way.  Get some grass or moisture (rain or dew) in there and the spin drops significantly.

Nicklaus was speaking in 1962, when fairways weren't cut nearly as tight as today so getting a little grass between the club and ball was inevitable even for a player of his caliber, so grooves did affect the spin then.  I would assert that for pros today, they could play with grooveless irons from a dry fairway with little noticeable effect.


For example, how can you explain him saying the ball would come down softer? Everyone knows that back spin makes a ball come down at a steeper angle, which is what most people would characterize as softer. How could Jack be right, if he is that wrong on just that one piece of what he said? Perhaps if you asked him, he would say by softer he meant with less backspin, but that is not the usual meaning of the words he used.


Backspin doesn't make a ball come down at a steeper angle, it makes it hit the green with more backspin.  Height is what you want if you want the ball to hit the green at a steeper angle.  That's sort of the "drop and stop" thing that Titleist advertises for the Pro V1.

I sweep all my irons with little or no divot, even my wedges.  I very rarely get the ball to back up at all, but I hit it so high (probably because I'm not delofting it at impact like guys hitting down hard and taking a healthy divot) so it also doesn't move forward much either, so long as the green isn't so firm it at least allows some sort of minimal dent.  When the green's so hard the ball's impact leaves no dent, neither trajectory nor backspin is going to keep stop it going forward, though backspin might get it to back up to closer to where it first hit.
My hovercraft is full of eels.

TEPaul

Re:Rubenstein: Pros must put a new spin on their game
« Reply #39 on: July 01, 2007, 07:09:16 AM »
"Why is that Tom?"

Sully:

Because although a much higher spinning ball will check and stop a bit better than some of the lower spinning balls used by Tour players today, even a high spinning ball doesn't offer much check and control once greens get to a certain firmness.

In other words, even if Woods tried to hit driver onto #2 green in the Open with a high spinning ball I doubt it would've stopped on the green if it landed where his did.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Rubenstein: Pros must put a new spin on their game
« Reply #40 on: July 01, 2007, 10:56:05 AM »
...
Backspin doesn't make a ball come down at a steeper angle, it makes it hit the green with more backspin.  Height is what you want if you want the ball to hit the green at a steeper angle.  That's sort of the "drop and stop" thing that Titleist advertises for the Pro V1.
...

Backspin makes a ball climb steeper and higher. Therefore, backspin will cause a ball to come down at a steeper angle, because it has made it ascend steeper and higher.

I don't remember seeing the Titleist ads for the Pro V1 that say this, but they can not be making this claim for balls hit by the driver vs. the old balata hit by the driver. They can make this claim, because off the short irons and wedges the ball has high spin.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2007, 10:57:07 AM by Garland Bayley »
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Doug Siebert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Rubenstein: Pros must put a new spin on their game
« Reply #41 on: July 01, 2007, 11:53:24 PM »
Titleist was talking "drop and stop" for the irons, not the driver.  I don't think many people would be excited by a ball that drops and stops off their driver, they want more roll with the driver even when it isn't helping them!

While backspin does help the ball climb, by necessity a ball hit with a lot of backspin must start at a lower trajectory because you have to hit down on it to get that backspin, which delofts the clubface.  Whether the backspin can make it climb high enough to descend at as steep an angle as a ball hit high with less spin (hit with a less descending or level blow so that it starts at a higher trajectory off the face) may be something that depends on the type of ball (Pro V1 versus balata) and perhaps the loft of the club being used.  The guys I know who really spin the hell out of their wedges hit them at a markedly lower trajectory than I do, and they hit the green at a much shallower angle.

As TEPaul points out, once greens get to a certain firmness, backspin doesn't help stop the ball very much.  I can confirm this in my experience, as when I'm playing with someone who is able to really spin back his shots he is able to access tight pins much better than me on softer greens because he can hit past the pin and pull the ball back, leaving him a bigger margin for error (though this can be a problem on rear pins)  But as the greens get harder his advantage disappears, and once the greens are hard enough he can't get the ball to back up at all his "skip forward twice and stop" landing at a shallower angle often goes as far or further than my high shot that's got comparatively little spin on it.

Not saying my way's better, just that I never mastered the art of really hitting down on it and spinning it, I tend to only hit that shot if I'm in a divot or something when I have no choice because I hit it fat too often to rely on it when in a good lie!
My hovercraft is full of eels.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back